John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:33:07AM +0000, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> > - ListType::iterator prev = it;
>> > - --prev;
>> > forkedCalls.erase(it);
>> > - it = prev;
>>
>> I don't see the bug. You return to the start of the list, I move to the
>> next itme in the list. The 'prev' stuff is safe if ugly, as I understand
>> list.
>
> it = forkedCalls.erase(it);
No good I'm afraid. This sets it == to the next element in the list so the
subsequent ++it in the for(; it != end; ++it) buggers things up.
I guess we could have
while (it != end) {
if (remove_it) {
it = forkedCalls.erase(it);
actCall->emitSignal();
delete actCall;
} else {
++it;
}
}
That seems pretty clear.
iterator
erase(iterator __position)
{
_List_node_base* __next_node = __position._M_node->_M_next;
_List_node_base* __prev_node = __position._M_node->_M_prev;
_Node* __n = static_cast<_Node*>(__position._M_node);
__prev_node->_M_next = __next_node;
__next_node->_M_prev = __prev_node;
_Destroy(&__n->_M_data);
_M_put_node(__n);
return iterator(static_cast<_Node*>(__next_node));
}
--
Angus
